I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Sep 22, 2011 6:49am
So no one can have an opinion on states outside their own? Gotcha.ohiotiger33;906339 wrote:You don't live in that state, so move to one that doesn't have the death penalty!
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
Sep 22, 2011 9:24am
thats what the people want.I Wear Pants;906337 wrote:
The state should not kill people.
G
Gblock
Sep 22, 2011 9:26am
while many times i probably am the type to side with sparing the death penalty if there is some sort of doubt. but honestly in this case i really didnt see anything that made me believe he didnt do it
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Sep 22, 2011 9:41am
Morality is not democratic.Glory Days;906493 wrote:thats what the people want.
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
Sep 22, 2011 9:55am
sure it is. society decides what is and what isnt morale.I Wear Pants;906509 wrote:Morality is not democratic.
FatHobbit
Posts: 8,651
Sep 22, 2011 9:57am
I'm for the death penalty, but I agree with IWP. What is right should not be determined by vote. If that were true women would still be in the kitchen (where they belong) and some states would have slaves.Glory Days;906525 wrote:sure it is. society decides what is and what isnt morale.
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
Sep 22, 2011 10:00am
the morale standards of a society evolves with time etc.FatHobbit;906529 wrote:I'm for the death penalty, but I agree with IWP. What is right should not be determined by vote. If that were true women would still be in the kitchen (where they belong) and some states would have slaves.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Sep 22, 2011 10:01am
Depends on which theory of ethics we're using. Aristotle certainly disagrees with you in his Nicomachean Ethics. He contends that what is right is right even if everybody is wrong about it.Glory Days;906525 wrote:sure it is. society decides what is and what isnt morale.
I tend to agree. If everyone suddenly decided rape and murder was okay they would not be. They are inherently evil and what society thinks about them is irrelevant. Colonialists thought racism and slavery were okay. They were wrong and both those actions are unjust. Simply because they all thought it was okay didn't make it so.
majorspark
Posts: 5,122
Sep 22, 2011 10:05am
The former was determined by vote. The latter war.FatHobbit;906529 wrote:I'm for the death penalty, but I agree with IWP. What is right should not be determined by vote. If that were true women would still be in the kitchen (where they belong) and some states would have slaves.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Sep 22, 2011 10:07am
Just because the majority was correct in one instance (Women's suffrage) doesn't mean that the majority is always correct.majorspark;906539 wrote:The former was determined by vote. The latter war.
Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Sep 22, 2011 10:12am
That I can agree with. 2008 Presidential election proves it.I Wear Pants;906542 wrote:Just because the majority was correct in one instance (Women's suffrage) doesn't mean that the majority is always correct.
majorspark
Posts: 5,122
Sep 22, 2011 10:20am
Didn't say that. But practically speaking ones rights are secured by the government and the people.I Wear Pants;906542 wrote:Just because the majority was correct in one instance (Women's suffrage) doesn't mean that the majority is always correct.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Sep 22, 2011 10:30am
Morality isn't practical. If we did what was most practical we'd all be greedy murderous bastards only looking out for ourselves.
Glory Days justified an action as right because the majority want it. That is what I was speaking to. The people or a government can most certainly be morally wrong.
Glory Days justified an action as right because the majority want it. That is what I was speaking to. The people or a government can most certainly be morally wrong.
Our legal rights yes. But government nor a majority vote can change what is right and what is wrong.majorspark;906558 wrote:Didn't say that. But practically speaking ones rights are secured by the government and the people.
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
Sep 22, 2011 10:35am
of course its wrong when you apply hindsight. if you were alive back then, you would have no problem owning slaves and wouldnt think twice about it.I Wear Pants;906534 wrote:Depends on which theory of ethics we're using. Aristotle certainly disagrees with you in his Nicomachean Ethics. He contends that what is right is right even if everybody is wrong about it.
I tend to agree. If everyone suddenly decided rape and murder was okay they would not be. They are inherently evil and what society thinks about them is irrelevant. Colonialists thought racism and slavery were okay. They were wrong and both those actions are unjust. Simply because they all thought it was okay didn't make it so.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Sep 22, 2011 10:36am
That I might think owning slaves is okay is irrelevant as it's inherently wrong.Glory Days;906581 wrote:of course its wrong when you apply hindsight. if you were alive back then, you would have no problem owning slaves and wouldnt think twice about it.
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
Sep 22, 2011 10:54am
only because of the mindset you have today because of the society you were brought up in. for thousands of years, slavery was not inherently wrong or else it would have never happened.I Wear Pants;906583 wrote:That I might think owning slaves is okay is irrelevant as it's inherently wrong.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Sep 22, 2011 10:56am
People do what is wrong all the time.Glory Days;906611 wrote:only because of the mindset you have today because of the society you were brought up in. for thousands of years, slavery was not inherently wrong or else it would have never happened.
Slavery was just as wrong back then as it is now. What people thought about it has nothing to do with it.
You're confusing societal norms with morality. They are different concepts.
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
Sep 22, 2011 11:01am
so what/who determines what is right or wrong if it isnt people/society? morals are a human element not some science applied to everything.I Wear Pants;906616 wrote:People do what is wrong all the time.
Slavery was just as wrong back then as it is now. What people thought about it has nothing to do with it.
You're confusing societal norms with morality. They are different concepts.
"Morals refers to generally accepted customs of conduct and right living in a society, and to the individual's practice in relation to these"
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Sep 22, 2011 11:15am
I'm speaking from a Virtue Ethics point of view. There are other views as well (Utilitarian, etc).Glory Days;906623 wrote:so what/who determines what is right or wrong if it isnt people/society? morals are a human element not some science applied to everything.
"Morals refers to generally accepted customs of conduct and right living in a society, and to the individual's practice in relation to these"
Virtue Ethics says that we strive for the mean of things. For example courage is a virtue but one can be too courageous and is therefore rash. We can also have a lack of courage and be cowards. The goal is the mean, the proper amount, for the right reasons, etc.
There are some things that have no mean and are inherently unjust. There is no proper amount of theft, rape, murder, adultery, slavery, etc.
And your idea that I would have thought differently about slavery if I were alive in a different time is untrue because the above ideas were promoted by Aristotle who lived in 300 something BC.
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
Sep 22, 2011 11:18am
haha yeah i am going to go back to playing Hungry Hungry Hippos now.I Wear Pants;906646 wrote:I'm speaking from a Virtue Ethics point of view. There are other views as well (Utilitarian, etc).
Devils Advocate
Posts: 4,539
Sep 22, 2011 11:19am
Then what about the 2000 presidential election???Skyhook79;906550 wrote:That I can agree with. 2008 Presidential election proves it.
gorocks99
Posts: 10,760
Sep 22, 2011 11:20am
Immanuel Kant wants a ruling on this debate.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Sep 22, 2011 11:20am
+1gorocks99;906654 wrote:Immanuel Kant wants a ruling on this debate.
Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Sep 22, 2011 1:05pm
What about it?Devils Advocate;906653 wrote:Then what about the 2000 presidential election???
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Sep 22, 2011 1:51pm
No, I'm allowed an opinion on the matter and I am allowed to voice said opinion.ccrunner609;906696 wrote:Yep, the simplistic beauty of our system. States rights.
Just because I don't live in a state doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on matters in said state or that it's none of my business. It is my business (at least in regards to legal matters and such) because of the way in which precedent works.